Gender roles in the church in the non-binary world

[Mendalla]

Riffing off of some of the discussion in the "God as father" thread and the Transgender thread, I am curious whether, in all the fuss over gender roles in the church, the growing visibility of transgender, non-binary, and such comes into play. Would a person who doesn't clearly identify with either gender (be they intersexed, fluid, non-binary, or whatever) be treated differently than cis- or transgendered persons who clearly identify with a gender, even if it is not the one they were born with? What about trans persons? My sense right now is that those churches that apply gender criteria to leadership roles are also the the ones that continue to deny, or at least struggle with, the existence of non-binary genders and even transgender but what about more mainstream churches? If you accept women (cis or trans) in the pulpit, does that then require you to also accept someone who may identify with both female and male or who changes gender identity over time in that role?

My sense is that even those who accept women and gays in the leadership of the church aren't always as accepting of alternative gender identities or of those who have changed their gender identity from that with which they were born. IOW, the LGB may be more widely accepted than the TQ.

 

[Mendalla]

I, personally, would welcome trans and qenderqueer leaders in a church that I was in and would hope that they would be treated as any other member of the church from that standpoint. I see no reason why they shouldn't be in pulpits or board chairs.

 

[revjohn]

Riffing off of some of the discussion in the "God as father" thread and the Transgender thread, I am curious whether, in all the fuss over gender roles in the church, the growing visibility of transgender, non-binary, and such comes into play.

Difficult to say that it wouldn't. The fuss over gender roles flows out of a rigid belief in Created order and is typically closely connected to Biblical Literalism.

It is expressed in such cliches as "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." As if Steve is somehow not part of God's good creation though I suspect you get the point. And then you have wives should submit to their husbands. As a result Gender is a black and white issue. If you were born with a penis you are male if you were born without. If you are confused about that it is because of your personal depravity. Once it is taken as given that there are only two possible expressions of gender we can settle down and determine that one of those two genders always gets to call the shots.

Non-binary expressions of gender simply does not compute. It is an error. End of story.

Women denied any inherent authority operates much the same way. Man is always the head of the family. Anything else is mistaken. End of story.

Would a person who doesn't clearly identify with either gender (be they intersexed, fluid, non-binary, or whatever) be treated differently than cis- or transgendered persons who clearly identify with a gender, even if it is not the one they were born with?

Not likely. If you accept that there is only male or female anything else is out of bounds and represents abomination.

What about trans persons?

See above.

My sense right now is that those churches that apply gender criteria to leadership roles are also the the ones that continue to deny, or at least struggle with, the existence of non-binary genders and even transgender but what about more mainstream churches?

Agree with your thoughts regarding gender criteria. Mainstream is more of a struggle with novelty. Do we do it because we judge individuals based on merit or do we do it to be first? Not always easy to discern. Coming from a denomination that pats itself on the back for being the first to drop their hat it would be hard not to say some of our choices are made purely for the trophy it entitles us to.

If you accept women (cis or trans) in the pulpit, does that then require you to also accept someone who may identify with both female and male or who changes gender identity over time in that role?

As soon as gender is removed from the list of disqualifying criteria you can never again appeal to gender identity as a disqualifier. Each must then stand or fall according to accepted merits.

My sense is that even those who accept women and gays in the leadership of the church aren't always as accepting of alternative gender identities or of those who have changed their gender identity from that with which they were born. IOW, the LGB may be more widely accepted than the TQ.

I can see that. I think it is part of the novelty issue. While the decision made by the UCCAN in 1988 lifted sexual orientation from the disqualifications list it took much, much longer to actually parlay the result of that decision into appropriate action. I mean you couldn't ask a candidate for Ordination or any minister seeking to answer a call about their orientation. You could guess and as long as you didn't actually articulate the bias you could find some other reason to disqualify the individual.

And if you do not know how to properly and respectfully address your clergy it doesn't take long before the solution to that problem is find a new clergy person.

It isn't the right thing to do obviously but we shouldn't pretend that human beings cannot do anything but the right thing.

 

[Luce NDs]

Difficult to say that it wouldn't. The fuss over gender roles flows out of a rigid belief in Created order and is typically closely connected to Biblical Literalism.

It is expressed in such cliches as "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." As if Steve is somehow not part of God's good creation though I suspect you get the point. And then you have wives should submit to their husbands. As a result Gender is a black and white issue. If you were born with a penis you are male if you were born without. If you are confused about that it is because of your personal depravity. Once it is taken as given that there are only two possible expressions of gender we can settle down and determine that one of those two genders always gets to call the shots.

Non-binary expressions of gender simply does not compute. It is an error. End of story.

Women denied any inherent authority operates much the same way. Man is always the head of the family. Anything else is mistaken. End of story.



Not likely. If you accept that there is only male or female anything else is out of bounds and represents abomination.



See above.



Agree with your thoughts regarding gender criteria. Mainstream is more of a struggle with novelty. Do we do it because we judge individuals based on merit or do we do it to be first? Not always easy to discern. Coming from a denomination that pats itself on the back for being the first to drop their hat it would be hard not to say some of our choices are made purely for the trophy it entitles us to.



As soon as gender is removed from the list of disqualifying criteria you can never again appeal to gender identity as a disqualifier. Each must then stand or fall according to accepted merits.



I can see that. I think it is part of the novelty issue. While the decision made by the UCCAN in 1988 lifted sexual orientation from the disqualifications list it took much, much longer to actually parlay the result of that decision into appropriate action. I mean you couldn't ask a candidate for Ordination or any minister seeking to answer a call about their orientation. You could guess and as long as you didn't actually articulate the bias you could find some other reason to disqualify the individual.

And if you do not know how to properly and respectfully address your clergy it doesn't take long before the solution to that problem is find a new clergy person.

It isn't the right thing to do obviously but we shouldn't pretend that human beings cannot do anything but the right thing.

Could we be wrong on bean versus not bean ... in essence? Striking this chord ... one is out there to the existentialist ... coyote ugly? Day of the Dog .. when the Shadow entered the light and all was a different hue ... a Nous Buss? A spy ... wasn't there a myth about that and an bullet of Isis?

In some cases a Dais of Con Dor ... where thoughts go when leaving? No where ... what ever ...

 

[Delightful Life]

I expect this to be required theology relatively soon

TSER Gender Unicorn
Yiff!!!

 

[Delightful Life]

Also otherkin (which includes such things as attack helicopters etc. Yes Ive known some otherkin)

As long as people in the church aren't forced by law to recognize and call someone as the particular gender etc identity, then its all good

 

[Seeler]

Leading a rather sheltered life, as far as I know I've only met two transgendeer persons in rl.
One I met as a young man, Medium height, slender build but in good shape (military), short hair, clean shaven. Friendly but reserved. Since I met him at our congregation's Rainbow Brunch, talking with a man I knew to be gay, I presumed that he was also gay. Only later, after several gatherings, did he share with a small group of us that he was trans-male. Since I already thought of him as male I had no problem with accepting him as male.
The second was a bit more difficult. Over 6 feet, 5 o'clock shadow, deep voice. I occasionally saw 'him' around town, dressed in a skirt and carrying a purse, but 'his' stance, gestures, walk shouted male. I guess I thought of his as a cross-dresser or simply someone who prefered women's clothes like anotherr man I know who definitely identifies as male. But within the last year I've met him personally at church events and learned that she iss trans-female, and despite her appearance she identifies as female. It is harder to get used to.
But I think that with a bit of effort on my part I could accept either trans-male or trans-female in any role in the church.

With gender fluid I might find it disconcerting to never know who I was going to see on any given day. But I dare say I could get used to that too.

 

[Luce NDs]

And black & white becomes even grey-Eire in essence of solid thoughts!

Kind 've like angels taking on demanding roles ... tough nutz ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

I expect this to be required theology relatively soon

TSER Gender Unicorn
Yiff!!!

Also, there's the Genderbread Person:

 

[Delightful Life]

Aaaan coming soon
(allready here actually)
The transracial
Best current example

Rachel Dolezal was ousted from being head PooBah of NAACP when someone "found out" she wasnt "black"...not one of NAACP's most nonracist moments...

But she self identifies as black
(Similar to transgender snd genderfluid n otherkin etc)
So many identites for us poor plebes to keep track of


Wherez my scorecard???

 

[Delightful Life]

@Seeler
Be sure 2 take it slowly with us freaks, alright? Dont worry aboot feeling icky or wrong...that's completely normal...dont feel you HAVE to treat this person as a woman or a man...get to know them...each of us genderfucked people are very different..
And the best ones wont try to chsnge the laws so that it will be against the law in Canada no to call us how we self identify

And that's coming from this fat chick whose sex is male and who has a beard from their wife (she likes kissing better with my beard...less poking)

 

[crazyheart]

and you have a fox's tail. bahahahahaha

 

[Jaebius]

Would a person who doesn't clearly identify with either gender (be they intersexed, fluid, non-binary, or whatever) be treated differently than cis- or transgendered persons who clearly identify with a gender, even if it is not the one they were born with?

In conservative evangelical churches I do believe they would be.

What about trans persons?

Same.

My sense right now is that those churches that apply gender criteria to leadership roles are also the the ones that continue to deny, or at least struggle with, the existence of non-binary genders and even transgender...

"Deny" isn't fair. "Struggle" perhaps. Holding their behavior wrong - yes.

 

[paradox3]

In conservative evangelical churches I do believe they would be.



Same.



"Deny" isn't fair. "Struggle" perhaps. Holding their behavior wrong - yes.

Jae. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but your leaving and returning to WC2 is becoming ridiculous. This is the last I have to say on the matter.

 

[Jaebius]

Jae. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but your leaving and returning to WC2 is becoming ridiculous. This will likely be the last I have to say on the matter.

I understand. I chiefly returned to administer a music thread.

 

[GordW]

"Deny" isn't fair. "Struggle" perhaps. Holding their behavior wrong - yes.

IME deny is not only fair but entirely accurate. Saying that they are somehow broken or misformed is also common.

 

[Jaebius]

IME deny is not only fair but entirely accurate.

We've different experiences. I've been in such churches 20 years. You?

Saying that they are somehow broken or misformed is also common.

I've never heard those words specifically applied to those with non-binary genders and transgendered people.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I can imagine that a group who is devoted to binary thinking being simply unable to go forward with the idea that there are either/or situations. Where, for instance (to remove this from Jae and his Baptist-type thinking), does the Catholic Church, which is the true "home" of this binary thinking, move from here? I'm not sure they can.

 

[Northwind]

Many churches think in black and white and so therefore would not accept a trans person. That would force them to accept "grey", or purple, or whatever colour that falls outside of black and white. I like John's explanation above.

I have a friend who is transitioning now. It's made me think more about this and struggle with some of the issues. It's all too easy to say we accept something until we are faced with it. He moved away so my main contact now is through FB. I have no trouble considering him "he" in print. When I ran into mutual friends recently and we were talking about his latest exploits, i found it hard to call him "he". I will adjust. He's far happier now and that is my wish for him.

 

[Northwind]

Many churches think in black and white and so therefore would not accept a trans person. That would force them to accept "grey", or purple, or whatever colour that falls outside of black and white. I like John's explanation above.

I have a friend who is transitioning now. It's made me think more about this and struggle with some of the issues. It's all too easy to say we accept something until we are faced with it. He moved away so my main contact now is through FB. I have no trouble considering him "he" in print. When I ran into mutual friends recently and we were talking about his latest exploits, i found it hard to call him "he". I will adjust. He's far happier now and that is my wish for him.